Talk:Five-Percent Nation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Five-Percent Nation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 360 days  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on December 11, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
This article is neither neutral, nor encyclopedic edit
Aside from historical and biographic data, this entire article is just a summary of the Five-Percent Nation's beliefs, attributed entirely to primary sources, and presented in wikipedia's voice. If an article on a fringe christian sect would be written the same way, it would be rightfully gutted within minutes. What are the editors doing? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- While I'd agree it isn't encyclopedic, I'd argue that it is still neutral. It's very much a rock and a hard place situation due to the nature of the NPOV policy. Let's take this line from the History section as an example:
- "The NGE does not consider itself a religion; its position is that it makes no sense to be religious or to worship or deify anyone or anything outside of oneself..."
- Outright stating it is or isn't a religion, even if for the sake of argument we assumed that was correct, likely wouldn't pass as impartial. So you're stuck writing lots of he said/she said/they said about any sticking point because that's impartial, even if it doesn't make for a good quality article. And looking at the rest of the piece that tracks. WynnAurelium (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- And as im striving to provide information an editor banned 2601:406:5002:B00:EDE5:8C02:E113:261F (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Supreme Understanding phd edit
Under notable 5 percenters “Supreme Understanding” is described as “author and historian, PhD”. His Wikipedia entry lists him as holding only a BA, an MA, and an Ed. D. These are not PhDs, so one or the other article is incomplete or incorrect. 2601:602:8200:DEF0:E829:CDCA:6A5D:BD3B (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I discredit the editors edit
Prior changes were accurate are you not reading the information in the articles that are submitted 2601:406:5002:B00:EDE5:8C02:E113:261F (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Inaccurate information edit
The Five percenters began in 1965 not 1964 There is a difference between five percenters and the nation of gods and earths. As I am trying to correct I have found myself in an edit war. Im a five percener the editors are not and you all have audacity to tell me about my culture. Validity is important in my culture 2601:406:5002:B00:EDE5:8C02:E113:261F (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- That still gives you no excuses for vandalism. The Banner talk 23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It spells out what Wikipedia aims to provide, and the policies on sourcing that attempt to provide it. If you really want to effect some positive changes to the article, you will need to:
- Go slowly. Address each "lie" or "falsehood" separately.
- Provide reliable sources for each piece of content you want to add, remembering that Wikipedia does not accept the personal testimony of editors as a reliable source.
- If you wish to remove content that is already sourced, you need to have another source that reliably refutes it, or somehow impeach the reliability of the source.
- That's simply the way it works here. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)